xcomfandomcom-20200223-history
XCOM Wiki talk:Community Portal
Category:Community This is the general discussion page for the wiki! New founders should leave a nice welcome message and encourage new visitors and editors to leave a note to get the conversation started. ---- Impossible Difficulty in XCOM 2 compared to the others It seems that resource and time requirements are completely different on Impossible. Now should for example infoboxes have a new Impossible section? Glymner (talk) 23:25, February 14, 2016 (UTC) : You mean on Legend difficulty? If its just the values that are different then I think we could get away putting the second value in parentheses or something (like you did on the Advanced Explosives page) so long as we can add a note to the infobox identifying the secondary values as such. If there are actual new requirements then it might make more sense to include them a separate section. Anyone else with thoughts or suggestions? Monkeybite (talk) 00:31, February 15, 2016 (UTC) Infoboxes I have changed some of the infoboxes to not display blankfields. Will pages update itself after at time or does it need to be "edited"? Glymner (talk) 08:13, February 13, 2016 (UTC) : Thanks for that and I'm not quite sure. I know somethings on the wiki update themselves every 24 hours but they certainly will update if edited; given the general state of flux everything, I wouldn't worry about making an "edit" just to force the updated. Monkeybite (talk) 13:31, February 13, 2016 (UTC) Corpses Do you think we will be needing dedicated pages for each kind of corpse? As far as I am aware we only ever use them as reference in autopsy project. I assume it would be possible to just link to viable enemy types instead. what do you think? Elbenfreund (talk) 10:33, February 11, 2016 (UTC) *Imo the corpse pages should exist do have info on what they are used for, how many you need of them and their base market value. Eg Muton Corpse. Glymner (talk) 10:49, February 11, 2016 (UTC) **As Glymner points out, corpses do have other uses and market value information, so yes dedicated pages for each corpse is the goal. Monkeybite (talk) 13:32, February 11, 2016 (UTC) Tactical Info Many Pages feature an heading called 'Tactical Info'. This seems to be used in two very different ways. # In order to replicate the section of same name from the games info on a given item # Give genuine advice or pointers about tactical usage details. I think we should decide how to handle this consistent across pages. Also, I feel that very often there is only very limited educational value in the ingame 'tactical info' as this more often then not is about general mechanics that are already covered in its more appropriate place in this wiki. For example: All shotguns will have a bullet point explaining that they excel at CQC, this wiki however elaborates on this under Weapons (XCOM 2)#Shotguns. Which I think saner as is reduces redundancy. What do you think? Elbenfreund (talk) 09:15, February 11, 2016 (UTC) : To be consistent with pages from previous games I think the tactical info section should probably be the ingame section in with encase in quote. But then again comparatively to the XCOM EU armors there are even less functionally differences between armors, and even less so for the tactical info sections on items in general. Glymner (talk) 09:52, February 11, 2016 (UTC) :: I personally find the ingame tactical info of very limited value compared to our resources. The reason we include Project descriptions/proposals and the like is because they provide genuine information / lore background. So I wander if a verbantim copy of the ingame 'tactical info' text adds much to our resource at all. Elbenfreund (talk) 10:30, February 11, 2016 (UTC) :::"Tactical Info" should replicate the game's info covered in the section of the same name; other tactical analysis can be covered under a Tactics or Notes heading. While the actual tactical info may be of "very limited educational value" but the developers felt it would be of some use so I think this information typically fits under the tip: "Wiki articles should be friendly for users with little or no game experience." Also it will help give some actual content to fill out the page spaces; a lot of pages are starting to look a little barren with so much info crammed into the infoboxes - good work on getting so many of those up this fast. Monkeybite (talk) 13:53, February 11, 2016 (UTC) Extending the submenu As I am not too familiar with wikia's terminology, I do not know what the official name of this menu is. Its what opens up if you hover over "xcom2" next to 'On the wiki' and 'all games'. Is there a way to extend the list of items shown under xom2? Is this something requireing admin permissions? I would propably be helpfull to have an entry "equipment" on the same level as "soldiers", with sum items for "weapons", "utilities", "armor" and "misc" or something along those lines. On a related note: the subitem under "aliens" and "advent" do not cover all enemy units actually listed on the related pages. Are these dropdowns generated or specified by hand? Elbenfreund (talk) 20:38, February 8, 2016 (UTC) : You're correct that editing the wiki navigation has to be done manually by someone with admin permissions. Per your request, I've added several missing enemies to their appropriate submenus and added an "Equipment" menu (linking to the category) next to Soldiers. For the moment I've only placed the Weapons (XCOM 2) page under the Equipment menu as we don't have proper pages yet for Armors or Utility Items; once those pages are created I can add them to the navigation (and will probably start moving content off the general "Items" page). Monkeybite (talk) 14:07, February 9, 2016 (UTC) :: Wonderful. I have created Weapon Modifications as a stub which I will extend once I'm near the game again, so I guess this could be place in the menu already as well as the good looking Personal Combat Sims page. Elbenfreund (talk) 22:52, February 9, 2016 (UTC) ::: I've renamed the "Weapon Modifications" page to "Weapon Upgrades" as that's how the menu is listed in-game, but both pages would make good additions to the Equipment menu. I'll add them after the Weapon Upgrades page gets filled in a bit more. Monkeybite (talk) 23:40, February 9, 2016 (UTC) :::: Thank you for the fast feedback. I started Category:Abilities (XCOM 2) and Category:Status Effects (XCOM 2) which once they got some more meat to them would propably fit under the "Avenger" menu. Page Suffixes I think it would save the most time in the future to name any page relating to any game eg "Xxx (XCOM X) for future games. If a page shares a name with something else examples it creates a problem. *Grenade: "Plasma Grenade (XCOM 2)" *Proving Ground Project: "Plasma Grenade (XCOM 2 Project) Now the question is: should pages that shares a name with another both have an extra suffix or should only one have a extra suffix because it is less relevant? Glymner (talk) 12:38, February 9, 2016 (UTC) * I am not sure if I i understand correctly, but i find Plasma_Granade_(XCOM2_Project) very ugly. Also XCOM:EU seems to do it like this: '__()'. E.g. 'Plasma_Granade_Project_(XCOM_2)'. I think this latter version is preferable. Elbenfreund (talk) 13:17, February 9, 2016 (UTC) ** It wouldn't make sense to put the clarification before the game title since the game title would be the first thing of interest, and would be increasing interest as the number of games increase. But if it looks so ugly we could add a " - " between the title and clarifaction. Glymner (talk) 13:43, February 9, 2016 (UTC) *** I am not entirely sure I understand the problem we try to fix. Both game title and 'project' vs 'item' are "disambiguations" of sort. If this is really about making the string as easly parseable as possible by ordering relevant lookup information one would propably start with the game version to begin with. But that is clearly overkill. I just think that the brackets bring special emphasis to the fact that this is about a particular game version and its confusing to put even more 'metadata' in them. In the end, I don't care too much as I think most people just follow the links anyway, but I think it would be good to follow XCOM:EUs precedence for the time beeing until this community decides to change that. Elbenfreund (talk) 18:04, February 9, 2016 (UTC) ****''Got damnit man! Think of your children's children who has to edit this wiki when XCOM 10 comes out!'' ;) Ok I'll just add data where clarifaction is needed. Glymner (talk) 18:11, February 9, 2016 (UTC) Page Categories If a page has or is receiving a category already subtitled with "(XCOM 2)", it does not also need to be tagged with the "XCOM 2" category. Monkeybite (talk) 01:23, February 10, 2016 (UTC) Supplies Template I've copied from the code used for the Credit template used in Enemy Unknown articles to create a Supplies template for use on appropriate XCOM 2 pages: i.e. yields . Happy editing wiki users! Monkeybite (talk) 16:52, February 11, 2016 (UTC) ---- =Old Threads= Enemy abilites I was wondering about our way to handle enemy abilities. As it is right now, most pages on enemies have an abilities section listing them with a short functional description. However, abilities are also listed inthe infobox. Given that we want to avoid duplicating information, I was wondering if we want to stick with this or move abilities always to a seperate page and link to there from the infobox?! I do not have a clear preference myself, but just wanted to raises the issue... Elbenfreund (talk) 05:58, February 8, 2016 (UTC) : I have created Category:Abilities (XCOM 2) and corresponding sub-categoriess to start building a comprehensive list. Autopsies Right now information about autopsy results is listed as a dedicated article as well as in a section on the corresponding species. I assume it would be beneficial to decide on one location to store this information and link there if need be. Elbenfreund (talk) 21:40, February 7, 2016 (UTC) * Those autopsy pages would just become enormous since we probably will see XCOM 3. Glymner ** Well they already exist under Research Projects (XCOM 2) and as showcased with the Sectoid we can append a XCOM version just as we do with other pages. --Elbenfreund (talk) 22:17, February 7, 2016 (UTC) ***Correct, new XCOM 2 autopsy pages will cut down on clutter and confusion with existing autopsy pages, some of which will need renaming with "(XCOM: Enemy Unknown)" to help differentiate between the game versions. So my opinion is that autopsy results should be listed on the autopsy pages and linked to as necessary. Monkeybite (talk) 03:49, February 8, 2016 (UTC) *That brings me to a general policy question. My impression is that we do not append version specifix suffixes to pages but for where actual disambiguation is needed due to the existing of the concent/entity in multiple games. Am I correct about this? Elbenfreund (talk) 05:17, February 8, 2016 (UTC) **In general yes. Right now, I've been making sure the XCOM 2 variants have been receiving the suffix with plans to apply retroactive XCOM: Enemy Unknown labels as necessary. Part of this is because it simpiflies the linking process/coding and the other part is because there is already a daunting amount of work ahead just for adjusting the links of the established pages that do/will need it after their name changes. That said, I've been trying to implement some forward-thinking suffix applications, such as labeling all the aliens from XCOM 2 as they're one of the elements I can most likely see being reused in the future; I haven't done this for ADVENT units pages as I imagine the organization will likely be specific to this game. Abilities are another element I'm debating flagging with the XCOM 2 suffix as I can imagine those names being recycled in the future. Are there any other elements that people think could use this treatment? **I just add suffixes for ease use when using the ever present search field at the top. Glymner (talk) 07:42, February 8, 2016 (UTC) Overwatch Page We do have existing pages explaining Overwatch. Now that XCOM 2 is out, we either need to rewrite them to account for that fact (if not in mechanics then for the prose/alien references) or create a new Page dedicated to the XCOM 2 implementation of those mechanics (suppression and the like comes to mind as well). What option does the community deem preferable? Elbenfreund (talk) 22:07, February 7, 2016 (UTC) *I'm inclined to say a separate page for Overwatch in XCOM 2 is well warranted; as while the function is near identical, the actual implementation varies slightly (staggered shots by multiple units being a marked improvement) and, as you mention, there is a new set of aliens and abilities that will utilize or modify this mechanic. Monkeybite (talk) 03:49, February 8, 2016 (UTC) *I created and started this page. What is really needed is the numbers behind the Overwatch shot itself. Glymner (talk) 18:04, February 9, 2016 (UTC) How to deal with enemy armor stat Right now, most articles on XCOM 2 enemies just mention that it is an "armored target" where relevant. However, maybe it would be feasable to an enemies armor to the infobox just below its health? Also, the general mechanics probably warrant a dedicated page? --Elbenfreund (talk) 22:36, February 7, 2016 (UTC) *Yes, a new infobox for XCOM 2 enemies with a dedicated listing for armor would be ideal; I would have already done this if I knew how to implement such things. And yes, a dedicated page for how the armor mechanic works (and is shredded or bypassed) would go well alongside other game mechanics pages for XCOM 2. Monkeybite (talk) 03:49, February 8, 2016 (UTC) **Lovely. I will look into this and try to come up with a starting solution within the next couple of days.